This would explain why they would not order them from IG Farben for Riga (with the distances involved being similar). Whereas producing them there was possible, it wasn't some barbaric no man's land and probably even had the necessary equipment ready. (Whereas sending a chemist to produce a gas van seems to be obviously absurd.)

But that's not what the doc is saying. It's not about transport difficulties, it's about lack of availability and difficulties in production:

a) not enough apparatus exist at the moment
b) the production in the Reich is a much bigger problem
c) they can be produced on-site

seems to point to something else than CO bottles.

At the time, there had been not enough gas vans (just Lange's one or two CO bottle vehicles and one engine exhaust gas van) and a gas van or stationary gas chamber with engine exhaust could have been produced on-site in Riga (like they did in Mogilew). I'm not sure what the difficulties refer to then, maybe secrecy.

The chemist was needed 1.) just as the KTI chemists were involved in the development of the engine exhaust gas van, including to measure the gas concentrations from the engine and tune it accordingly and 2.) for safety measures and instructions.

Gerlach argues that some gas vans were indeed produced in the East (and interprets the doc in this sense), citing the testimony of a prisoner working at the KdS Minsk on constructing corresponding parts.

By the way, Brack was probably involved with CO bottled gas vans and, according to Widmann, also with engine exhaust gas vans:

Historians differ on what kind of gas chamber the document referred to, quite a lot think they were stationary.

---

Yes, a chemist would certainly need to be present during a gas van development, but it is clear from the document that Kallmeyer and Brack's people were to play the leading role specifically in the manufacturing:

(Safety is mentioned separately, so is not a part of this description.)

It cannot be argued that Kallmeyer and Brack's people only had to play a role of testers and finetuners, the whole process is meant here. So Kallmeyer was to play a role that, if this letter is talking about engine-exhaust gas vans, would actually be much better suited for an engineer/auto mechanic.

If the letter is talking about KKGV, this would contradict Widmann's testimony about problems with delivering CO bottles.

Equipping a gas-tight room with a gassing apparatus which includes a CO-bottle would fall naturally into a chemist's area of expertise.

This would also contradict Widmann, but in this case the whole Herstellung would have referred to production of the CO-filled bottles. (Arguing that maybe both KKGV and CO-filled bottles would be produced in Riga is not parsimonious.)

---

Historically, Brack's remedies are extremely unlikely to have referred to any engine exhaust gas van since this is not what Brack was known for. It either referred to a stationary or mobile GC with CO bottles. More likely to the stationary ones since they were the primary method, more familiar to those involved in the discussions.

And the probability of KKGV is also lessened by the previous considerations.

---

The impossibility of transporting the CO bottles may have had nothing to do with distance indeed, but rather with the small quantity of the available bottles which could not, for whatever reason, be filled in the needed quantities at the time (they would need to be refilled regularly, which meant transporting them to and fro, and much more often at that if not a lot of the bottles were available), so maybe it was "impossible" to take away the existing bottles and transport them to Russia since they were needed elsewhere, and using only a few of them didn't make a logistical sense or something.

We don't have Brack's direct speech, only Wetzel's rendering of his reasons (it's not clear that B enlightened W about the technical details), so not each word has to be taken overliterally. Both the "manufacturing" difficulties and the low numbers may thus have referred to what is described in the previous paragraph and are broadly compatible with what Widmann said.

---

The whole beginning of the 1st paragraph is devoted to the killing devices. Indeed, the "accomodations" are mentioned as something Brack would help to produce too. Brack, the euthanasia man, was not responsible for building of barracks, the letter was not about the general Jewish circumstances in camps, nowhere does the letter specify who specifically of Brack's people was to build the Unterkuenfte (as opposed to the gassing devices).

It follows then that the Unterkuenfte and the Vergasungsapparate are to be seen as parts of a whole. But Unterkuenfte cannot refer to the mobile gas chambers. The best explanation then is that it is a reference to the rooms in which the VA would have been used.

Sergey_Romanov wrote:
It follows then that the Unterkuenfte and the Vergasungsapparate are to be seen as parts of a whole. But Unterkuenfte cannot refer to the mobile gas chambers.

How so? Unterkunft (from Unterkommen) in its broad sense - which is used here, as Unterkunft is usually not something associated with a homicidal gas chamber - only means a covered place, whether a room, barrack, shipping container, cave, tent, or the box of a vehicle. If it can refer to a stationary gas chamber, in its broad sense/as sarcastic euphemism, it may just as well refer to the gas chamber of a gas van.

Besides, as you say, "not each word has to be taken overliterally"

Last edited by Hans on Sat Feb 03, 2018 11:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Well, also relevant in this context is Document 8 here. Just few weeks before Wetzel's letter, Brack's staff member suggested the killing of mentally ills in Russia using Sonderkommando Lange and its "suitable apparatus" (misspelled repair). Lange had employed carbon monoxide gas bottles connected to a vehicle box...

I imagine it’s very confusing for our “guests” that this isn’t all just wrapped up neatly in a bow and we seem to have a disagreement over interpretation.

“I noticed this morning that a group of our Landsberg friends have been given their freedom this morning. These include...Schubert, Jost and Nosske. Schubert confessed to...supervising the execution of about 800 Jews...(referring to the order to clean up Simferopol)...Schubert managed to kill all the Jews (by Christmas 1941). Nosske was the one the other defendants called the biggest bloodhound....
Noel, Noel, what the hell.”
Benjamin Ferencz in a letter to Telford Taylor, December 1951

Hans wrote:Well, also relevant in this context is Document 8 here. Just few weeks before Wetzel's letter, Brack's staff member suggested the killing of mentally ills in Russia using Sonderkommando Lange and its "suitable apparatus" (misspelled repair). Lange had employed carbon monoxide gas bottles connected to a vehicle box...

Previously posted on your blog re that decode:

I see now that these particular decodes were discussed at the libel trial Irving brought against Penguin/Lipstadt.

Peter Longerich argued that these decodes don't necessarily mean an actual gas van was flown to Novograd, it could mean that Sonderkommando Lange flew out there with bottles of CO to kill the patients:

Mr Irving:
There is only point in disputing what Sonderkommando Langer [sic] was up to. Are you familiar with the fact that it was also apparently flown, according to Brightman [sic], to take part in operations, I think Novgarod [sic]?

Dr Heinz Peter Longerich:
Yes. This is the link between the Warthegau killings and the killings in Russia because we know from actually, it is the intercepts I think, we know that Himmler summoned the Sonderkommando to Novgarod where they killed the inmates of a local home for disabled people. This is an essential part of the history of the Chelmno extermination camp. This is the link.

Mr Irving:
Does not the document show that the Sonderkommando was flown to Novgarod?

Dr Heinz Peter Longerich:
Yes.

Mr Irving:
How could they have put their van in a plane?

Dr Heinz Peter Longerich:
I did not say that they used a van. They killed the people obviously with bottles.

"I believe that when the history of the [Great] war comes to be impartially written, the two greatest results will be the establishment of the national Jewish home and the creation of the League of Nations. The two are not really disconnected. They represent the two great ideas for which we fought and by which we conquered—the ideas of nationalism and internationalism."
- Robert Cecil, 1st Viscount Cecil of Chelwood, March 1923.

Yeah, Lange was not tied to his gassing trailer. In fact, he started his operation to clear the asylums of the Warthegau by injecting the CO gas into casemates in Fort VII in Posen. Some bottles were or still are shown at an exhihibition in the fort.

The gassing technique was developed by Brack's men in Fort VII and I would suppose the same route of CO supply was used as for the Euthanasia sites in the Reich, i.e. order by the KTI and delivery by Becker. The exhibit shown does not look like gas bottles from German production and according to German regulations, from what can be seen (compare them to those in Majdanek: engraved enscription, place and thread for protection cap), so these may be just some bottles placed there for illustration. It stands to reason that the gassing trailer was also supported by Brack's men. It seems just like another branch grown for mobile operations in the Warthegau.

Back to the doc on Riga: if they wanted to "produce" CO gas bottles on site, i.e. rather refilling steel bottles with CO, they likely would have to tap on a chemical plant producing coal gas, methane, hydrogen etc. Riga apparently did have some chemical industry, so maybe not impossible.

Sergey_Romanov wrote:
It follows then that the Unterkuenfte and the Vergasungsapparate are to be seen as parts of a whole. But Unterkuenfte cannot refer to the mobile gas chambers.

How so? Unterkunft (from Unterkommen) in its broad sense - which is used here, as Unterkunft is usually not something associated with a homicidal gas chamber - only means a covered place, whether a room, barrack, shipping container, cave, tent, or the box of a vehicle. If it can refer to a stationary gas chamber, in its broad sense/as sarcastic euphemism, it may just as well refer to the gas chamber of a gas van.

Besides, as you say, "not each word has to be taken overliterally"

It cannot refer to the gas chamber of a gas van since on this interpretation VA would *be* gas vans and there would be no need to specify it separately, and before the VA is even mentioned at that.

So it most probably refers to gas-tight rooms where the VA were to be used. There doesn't seem to be any other plausible explanation.

Hans wrote:Well, also relevant in this context is Document 8 here. Just few weeks before Wetzel's letter, Brack's staff member suggested the killing of mentally ills in Russia using Sonderkommando Lange and its "suitable apparatus" (misspelled repair). Lange had employed carbon monoxide gas bottles connected to a vehicle box...

To quote an expert:

The limited capacity of a JU 52 renders it unlikely that a gas van was supposed to be sent to Novgorod, while the reference to "suitable apparatus" suggests a more sophisticated killing than shooting the patients. They were quite possibly meant to bring carbon monoxide bottles and pipes to prepare provisional gas chambers in the asylums near Novgorod.

Sergey_Romanov wrote:
It follows then that the Unterkuenfte and the Vergasungsapparate are to be seen as parts of a whole. But Unterkuenfte cannot refer to the mobile gas chambers.

How so? Unterkunft (from Unterkommen) in its broad sense - which is used here, as Unterkunft is usually not something associated with a homicidal gas chamber - only means a covered place, whether a room, barrack, shipping container, cave, tent, or the box of a vehicle. If it can refer to a stationary gas chamber, in its broad sense/as sarcastic euphemism, it may just as well refer to the gas chamber of a gas van.

Besides, as you say, "not each word has to be taken overliterally"

It cannot refer to the gas chamber of a gas van since on this interpretation VA would *be* gas vans and there would be no need to specify it separately, and before the VA is even mentioned at that.

I beg to differ, if you regard gassing apparatus as the source of gas and injection device, it is not identical to the gas van. The gas van was then a box ("Unterkunft") mounted on a chassis with gassing apparatus.

If one takes "Unterkunft" literally and in its narrow sense as place to stay for overnight, one could argue that Brack suggested to provide actual accommodations for the Jews with gas chamber function and turn on the gas at the night, for a more peaceful death. That concept perhaps adapated from Euthanasia killings was of course far from the actual practice done by Sonderkommando Lange on Jews in the Warthegau at the time. Or it could have been meant as "Unterkunft" for delousing, which can be a stationary site but also a gas van, the latter a concept Lange later implemented in Kulmhof.

Sergey_Romanov wrote:
It follows then that the Unterkuenfte and the Vergasungsapparate are to be seen as parts of a whole. But Unterkuenfte cannot refer to the mobile gas chambers.

How so? Unterkunft (from Unterkommen) in its broad sense - which is used here, as Unterkunft is usually not something associated with a homicidal gas chamber - only means a covered place, whether a room, barrack, shipping container, cave, tent, or the box of a vehicle. If it can refer to a stationary gas chamber, in its broad sense/as sarcastic euphemism, it may just as well refer to the gas chamber of a gas van.

Besides, as you say, "not each word has to be taken overliterally"

It cannot refer to the gas chamber of a gas van since on this interpretation VA would *be* gas vans and there would be no need to specify it separately, and before the VA is even mentioned at that.

I beg to differ, if you regard gassing apparatus as the source of gas and injection device, it is not identical to the gas van. The gas van was then a box ("Unterkunft") mounted on a chassis with gassing apparatus.

Let's assume for a sec that VA referred only to a part of the gas van.

EEGV: source = gasoline engine, couldn't be a problem. Injection device (separate from the box) = hose. It's hard to imagine that there would be a lack of such in the Reich or any difficulty involved in producing such. So this version can be rejected.

KKGV: source = CO-bottles fastened somewhere, injection - presumably a hose or a pipe, depending on the construction. Presumably more complicated than EEGV as a whole, though still hard to see which part would be so problematic it could not be done in the Reich aside from the CO-bottles. In which case we are back at square one, since if we presume the bottles were the problem, we don't have to posit any GV at all.

And it is hard to see how referring to car boxes in a figurative sense as Unterkünfte is *equally* plausible as referring to stationary rooms with such a word. If it is possible at all, it is still far less plausible and needs more stretching since there is no reason why this word would be used rather than a more natural term (whereas not mentioning "Gaskammer" or such is understandable). It's like saying "I ate a sphere for breakfast today" to designate an orange.

One could certainly imagine more possibilities than what we have in this thread (e.g. maybe they toyed with an entirely different gassing method, which wouldn't be implausible given all the experimenting in the camps - Fritzsch, Kramer, Belzec ZB attempts), but it's hard to find an interpretation that is *more* plausible (and makes fewer assumptions) than the stationary chambers with CO-bottles.

If one takes "Unterkunft" literally and in its narrow sense as place to stay for overnight, one could argue that Brack suggested to provide actual accommodations for the Jews with gas chamber function and turn on the gas at the night, for a more peaceful death.

Well, those would be stationary chambers, but it's hard to see why Brack would have deviated from the true and tried euthanasia methods ("shower"), aside from the method being impractical (much fewer ppl to be disposed of in one go, the mess with the clothes and belongings, etc.). So again, the plausibility is lower.

That concept perhaps adapated from Euthanasia killings was of course far from the actual practice done by Sonderkommando Lange on Jews in the Warthegau at the time. Or it could have been meant as "Unterkunft" for delousing, which can be a stationary site but also a gas van, the latter a concept Lange later implemented in Kulmhof.

But delousing not being criminal, there wouldn't be a reason to mask it (even on a reflexive level, as probably happened here since the rest of the letter talks about murder more openly). And that Lange used delousing doesn't mean that Brack would have had to worry about such matters (which would have had to be dealt with anyway, by other people, since a camp without a delousing station was a recipe for a disaster). And, to repeat, after the first mention the Unterkuenfte don't even come up again. Which rather indicates that their creation was tied to the VA.

---

The main point is, there are different interpretations possible for this draft, so as long as the gas van one is not shown to be the most plausible one by far, it shouldn't be in the GV docs collection.

BRoI wrote:Just inform the deniers that there's nothing suspicious about US prosecutors having lost the "short F-G report". US prosecutors/war crimes investigators lost very many important proofs of Nazi war crimes:

Konrad Morgen's report on the Erntefest massacre which included the wording of Himmler's order for it. Extracts from Morgen's report were read to Kaltenbrunner during his 12 October 1945 interrogation at Nuremberg.

The quoted excerpt from Morgen's report is both chilling and mystifying. Morgen himself was probably quoting a detailed description of the executions from eyewitnesses, since he had not witnessed the massacre first-hand. The comment "It was the old, tried system" would then have been Morgen's commentary on the quoted material. But why would Morgen have used that phrase? Does it indicate that he was unaware of the new system that had been tried and proved in Aktion Reinhard? There is no way of knowing, because his report has not survived.

"I believe that when the history of the [Great] war comes to be impartially written, the two greatest results will be the establishment of the national Jewish home and the creation of the League of Nations. The two are not really disconnected. They represent the two great ideas for which we fought and by which we conquered—the ideas of nationalism and internationalism."
- Robert Cecil, 1st Viscount Cecil of Chelwood, March 1923.

“I noticed this morning that a group of our Landsberg friends have been given their freedom this morning. These include...Schubert, Jost and Nosske. Schubert confessed to...supervising the execution of about 800 Jews...(referring to the order to clean up Simferopol)...Schubert managed to kill all the Jews (by Christmas 1941). Nosske was the one the other defendants called the biggest bloodhound....
Noel, Noel, what the hell.”
Benjamin Ferencz in a letter to Telford Taylor, December 1951

Kaltenbrunner denied knowledge or participation in any killing of Austrian political leaders prior to Anschluss, as charged in the statement of concentration camp inspector Morgen. He further denied knowledge of the extermination program carried on at Lublin, Poland in the autumn of 1943 in which 40,000 Jews were alleged to have been killed in one day on orders from Himmler following a report from Kaltenbrunner. He denied knowing the Lublin concentration camp Commander Musfeld, who was reported by concentration camp Inspector Morgen as having boasted of killing 20,000 by his own hand.

Q. I will come now to another meeting. Did you know a Hauptscharfuehrer Blank?

A. No.

Q. One of the elder SS men supervisors of arrests for Dachau?

A. No; definitely not.

Q. A man described as being well trained in killing?

A. No; definitely not.

Q. Do you recall before Anschluss when you received an order from either Himmler or Hitler to bring about the disappearance of certain political personalities in Austria?

A. I have never received any such order; besides, if such orders would have been issued, they would have been given to Heydrich, who was then Himmler's right-hand man, and never to Kaltenbrunner. A man like S[e]yss-Inquart can confirm that I never enjoyed this measure of confidence in those days. Heydrich objected jealously that instructions to complete tasks were given to member of the local government in Austria in by-passing his office in Berlin.

Q. Regardless of all that, the story goes on that Kaltenbrunner and Blank discussed the best manner to dispose of these people, it being desired that they be killed in Germany, and decided that they would kidnap the persons, bring them in a car to a lake in Bavaria, where they were to to shot and sunk in the lake. Blank first proposed that the corpses be spoiled to make their features unrecognizable, which you said was unnecessary, and the result is that thereafter the corpses, having ultimately come to the surface and being identified, caused a scandal that was well known.

A. This mad and absolutely untrue report is beyond me. Who is supposed to be involved in it?

Q. You, Ernst Kaltenbrunner.

A. Yes, but who is supposed to have been murdered? Somebody must have heard about it.

Q. That's all you have to say about it?

A. I don't know this Blank and I never had any such conversation in my life.

Q. Did you know a Dr. Wehrner, Kriminalrat Wehrner?

A. No. A man of a similar name was adjutant to Wolff.

Q. You have no recollection of the disposition of Dr. Wehrner towards Blank?

A. No. Besides, I don't know whether this Wehrner who was with Wolff had the title of Doctor. I don't think so; therefore it probably is a different person.

Q. Did you know a Herr Morgan?

A. No.

Q. Inspector of concentration camps?

A. No, definitely not.

Q. Maybe it will help to refresh your recollection if I recall to you a few of the facts that occurred late in the Autumn of 1943 as set forth in the report of Morgan, following the visit to Lublin. You do recall the time when several thousand Jews were slain in Lublin in one day?

A. No.

Q. And that their bodies were thereafter burned, there being so many that it caused a light dust to lie over the whole town, and penetrate the air like smoke?

A. There three stories are such fabrications, especially inasmuch as my person is concerned!

Q. It was during the period in which you were Chief of the Reich Security Police.

A. As I said, these stories are pure inventions, and besides your idea that I had anything to do with it in my official capacity is erroneous.

[...; above pages 7-9]

Q. Referring again to the Lublin murders, the result of this mass execution could not have escaped your attention, because as reported by Morgan after his inspection, it resulted in losing much of the available labor supply. There were no more people to work machines and in the handcraft shops. The factories were left with a tremendous stock of raw material, and the people in charge said that the order of the execution came as a complete surprise.

A. I never saw any such report, and I never heard about them.

Q. The local SS Oberfuehrer Muszfeld, who was formerly a confectioner, at Zuckerbaecker in the neighborhood of Kassel, was in immediate charge of the butchery at Lublin, and he told Morgan that he took credit for killing 20,000 by his own hand. Was he known to you?

A. No.

Q. A man of those attainments would certainly be pretty well known throughout the service, would he not?

A. He definitely did not belong to my staff.

Q. You say that you received no reports of the effects of this mass extermination because of the loss of manpower.

A. Definitely not. Even if this report were true, it is obvious that such a report would not have been addressed to me, but it would have been addressed to a person concerned with manpower questions. For instance, Pohl, chief of the concentration camps, or to Himmler, because Pohl carried on production right inside the concentration camps. He was interested in manpower questions. If I ever had received a report like this, I would immediately have taken it to Himmler or Hitler, and I would have declared to them that things couldn't be done this way.

Q. The message that came, ordering the mass execution, read in the following terms: "By order of the RFSS, the Jewish company in the camp Poniatowa is to be carried to it's final conclusion."

A. I have never seen any such order.

Q. I will read you the description that Morgan gave as to what took place: "The proceeding was always the same. The night before the execution came the order to build very hastily shelters in zig-zag against air-raids. In the early morning came troops and the execution began in these trenches. The prisoners had to leave their work and to attend in the neighborhood of the trenches. When their time came, they had to undress and naked, pass through the trench one after one in an infinite line. Coming to the first deaths (Interrogator: I think, meaning "dead one") the victim had to lie down on the dead body and then was killed by a shot from a gun in the neck. This went on so long until the trench was filled and the last person was dead. Then the trenches were closed. The naked men had their own trenches, and the women theirs. Children were with their mothers. Nobody of the victims had been ill-treated before executions. All passed in a methodical, silent way. The troops formed only a cordon and had nothing to do with it. There had been a few German police, and the most were Ukrainian. On each place there were only two or three killers who were placed above the trench. Behind them were two or three other men who spent all their time charging empty magazines. So the executions were going very quick, and the responsibility was only in the hands of very few men." Here is a second sentence: "It was the old, tried system." Do you agree that it was an old tried system?

A. I am not familiar with the method.

Q. Further on, this report of Morgan's states that extermination had been so complete that there was at last nobody left to burn the cadavers, and it was only with great difficulty that they rounded up enough Russian prisoners of war to do the burying. Did you know SS Sturmbahnfuehrer Wippern, in command at Lublin?

A. No.

Q. What became of all the money, jewelry and gold of the dead prisoners out of these camps?

A. I don't know.

Q. Didn't you ever receive any report as to what was done with these valuables?

A. No.

Q. You disclaim any knowledge of this incident that took place in the Autumn of 1943 at Lublin?

A. Yes. It is impossible that this report had been sent to me. I would have been to see Himmler or Hitler on the very first day; on the very same day.

Q. When Morgan made inquiries into the reasons for the mass executions, he was told by the local Sturmbahnfuehrer that this was top secret (Geheime Reichssache) but that it had been ordered by Himmler himself, after a personal report by Dr. Kaltenbrunner. How do you account for that?

A. Absolutely impossible.

Q. What report did you ever make on the camp at Lublin, or camps holding Jewish inmates elsewhere, that contained any recommendation which would lead to extermination of these people?

A. I never in my life made any such recommendations.

Q. That's all you have to say about it, is it?

A. Yes. Please ask Dr. Morgan where he has it from that I have ever made such reports or recommendations.

Q. Let me ask you about one more situation before we close today.

[...; above pages 10 - 13]

There's also an interrogation summary, but it contains numerous errors as the author clearly muddled it with details from the interrogation of 15 October. So I won't bother quoting it.

"I believe that when the history of the [Great] war comes to be impartially written, the two greatest results will be the establishment of the national Jewish home and the creation of the League of Nations. The two are not really disconnected. They represent the two great ideas for which we fought and by which we conquered—the ideas of nationalism and internationalism."
- Robert Cecil, 1st Viscount Cecil of Chelwood, March 1923.

Apologies for my late arrival to this thread. I have not been doing any H-related reading or blogging due to teaching commitments but have pulled together some thoughts on Wetzel-Lohse that I will eventually put on the blog. This is a summary of some of the issues I would raise:

1) Widmann's "impossibility of transportation of cylinders in Russia" is referring to Nebe's area (Mogilev/Minsk) so technically would not rule out transport of cylinders from Berlin to Riga.

2) On the other hand, although Brack may have had some experience with GVs, there was no need to involve him for Riga given that the KTI was already making progress on the GVs for the Einsatzgruppen. Just use one of those. This would suggest that they wanted a different capability for Riga, which was less ad hoc than a gas van.

3) Wetzel-Lohse NO-365 shows that Wetzel, Leibbrandt and Lohse were all aware of the Vilnius action in July 1941, which is the ostensible reason for preferring gassing in the Riga case

4) We have proof (NO-2094) that Wetzel was in correspondence with Brack, Lohse and Koch and that Leibbrandt had read it.

5) Wetzel-Lohse NO-365 concludes with the genocidal policy of separating work Jews by sex to prevent reproduction, which has implications for the fate of non-working Jews.

6) Mattogno's most recent writing (Italian edition of his Einsatzgruppen handbook) absurdly claims that policy did not change between the Braune Mappe of summer 1941 and the correspondence in 3663-PS (Nov-Dec 41) concerning executions in Libau and whether the policy was now to shoot all Jews. This is just crazy, ignoring the massive bodycount of the intervening months and the fact that Lohse's letter had already documented the killing of Jewish workers.It also of course ignores the Carl-Kube Slutsk complaint of the same period, which is also proof of escalation.

"I believe that when the history of the [Great] war comes to be impartially written, the two greatest results will be the establishment of the national Jewish home and the creation of the League of Nations. The two are not really disconnected. They represent the two great ideas for which we fought and by which we conquered—the ideas of nationalism and internationalism."
- Robert Cecil, 1st Viscount Cecil of Chelwood, March 1923.

"I believe that when the history of the [Great] war comes to be impartially written, the two greatest results will be the establishment of the national Jewish home and the creation of the League of Nations. The two are not really disconnected. They represent the two great ideas for which we fought and by which we conquered—the ideas of nationalism and internationalism."
- Robert Cecil, 1st Viscount Cecil of Chelwood, March 1923.

It sorta is and sorta isn't. Normally this transport is marked as Prague-Ujazdow. This was the 'punishment transport' in retaliation for the assassination of Heydrich.

Gottwaldt/Schulle, p.213, indicate that there was a selection on the Lublin ramp based on Schelvis and noting info from Peter Witte, while Kranz/Kuwalek/Siwek-Ciupak, p.216, note 51, state the following, albeit attached to the 10 June 1942 column of their table of Majdanek registrations. (The HW16/10 daily strength reports weren't intercepted for Majdanek in this phase.)

10962-11143 is exactly 182 registered prisoners, so the decode matches the KL sources used to reconstruct registration number sequences.

Gottwaldt/Schulle imply that prisoners from the 818 remaining deportees were divided among camps of the Wasserwirtschaftsinspektion in Chelm county, "darunter ein Lager in Ujazdow bei Hansk (ueber Wlodawa) unweit von Sobibor".

Two survivors are known from this transport, not sure if from Majdanek or from Chelm county.

There may have been a double selection at Lublin and then on arrival at Sobibor; the links between Sobibor and the surrounding ZALs in Chelm county were fairly close.

your website winstonsmithministryoftruth.blogspot.com used to be a hardcore holocaust revisionist website, attempting to seriously poke holes in or ridicule the mainstream account of the holocaust. My question is - are you now like David Irving, accepting some of the holocaust but not all of it, or do you completely recant your former writings. Very little of them can now be accessed, save for at this link: http://archive.is/winstonsmithministryo ... ogspot.com

your website winstonsmithministryoftruth.blogspot.com used to be a hardcore holocaust revisionist website, attempting to seriously poke holes in or ridicule the mainstream account of the holocaust. My question is - are you now like David Irving, accepting some of the holocaust but not all of it, or do you completely recant your former writings. Very little of them can now be accessed, save for at this link: http://archive.is/winstonsmithministryo ... ogspot.com

“I noticed this morning that a group of our Landsberg friends have been given their freedom this morning. These include...Schubert, Jost and Nosske. Schubert confessed to...supervising the execution of about 800 Jews...(referring to the order to clean up Simferopol)...Schubert managed to kill all the Jews (by Christmas 1941). Nosske was the one the other defendants called the biggest bloodhound....
Noel, Noel, what the hell.”
Benjamin Ferencz in a letter to Telford Taylor, December 1951

It seems that Blastikus only comes here for the Rabbit. What a shame, I think a new denier might draw us away from Trump.

“I noticed this morning that a group of our Landsberg friends have been given their freedom this morning. These include...Schubert, Jost and Nosske. Schubert confessed to...supervising the execution of about 800 Jews...(referring to the order to clean up Simferopol)...Schubert managed to kill all the Jews (by Christmas 1941). Nosske was the one the other defendants called the biggest bloodhound....
Noel, Noel, what the hell.”
Benjamin Ferencz in a letter to Telford Taylor, December 1951

I just wonder if BRoI still stands behind anything he wrote in the past - is he a partial revisionist, etc?

I stand corrected. BROI accepts the history but contends that exaggerations occurred.

“I noticed this morning that a group of our Landsberg friends have been given their freedom this morning. These include...Schubert, Jost and Nosske. Schubert confessed to...supervising the execution of about 800 Jews...(referring to the order to clean up Simferopol)...Schubert managed to kill all the Jews (by Christmas 1941). Nosske was the one the other defendants called the biggest bloodhound....
Noel, Noel, what the hell.”
Benjamin Ferencz in a letter to Telford Taylor, December 1951

I just wonder if BRoI still stands behind anything he wrote in the past - is he a partial revisionist, etc?

Is there something you wanted to discuss?

“I noticed this morning that a group of our Landsberg friends have been given their freedom this morning. These include...Schubert, Jost and Nosske. Schubert confessed to...supervising the execution of about 800 Jews...(referring to the order to clean up Simferopol)...Schubert managed to kill all the Jews (by Christmas 1941). Nosske was the one the other defendants called the biggest bloodhound....
Noel, Noel, what the hell.”
Benjamin Ferencz in a letter to Telford Taylor, December 1951

nickterry wrote:It sorta is and sorta isn't. Normally this transport is marked as Prague-Ujazdow. This was the 'punishment transport' in retaliation for the assassination of Heydrich.

Gottwaldt/Schulle, p.213, indicate that there was a selection on the Lublin ramp based on Schelvis and noting info from Peter Witte, while Kranz/Kuwalek/Siwek-Ciupak, p.216, note 51, state the following, albeit attached to the 10 June 1942 column of their table of Majdanek registrations. (The HW16/10 daily strength reports weren't intercepted for Majdanek in this phase.)

10962-11143 is exactly 182 registered prisoners, so the decode matches the KL sources used to reconstruct registration number sequences.

Gottwaldt/Schulle imply that prisoners from the 818 remaining deportees were divided among camps of the Wasserwirtschaftsinspektion in Chelm county, "darunter ein Lager in Ujazdow bei Hansk (ueber Wlodawa) unweit von Sobibor".

Two survivors are known from this transport, not sure if from Majdanek or from Chelm county.

There may have been a double selection at Lublin and then on arrival at Sobibor; the links between Sobibor and the surrounding ZALs in Chelm county were fairly close.

That's very informative, Nick. Thanks.

"I believe that when the history of the [Great] war comes to be impartially written, the two greatest results will be the establishment of the national Jewish home and the creation of the League of Nations. The two are not really disconnected. They represent the two great ideas for which we fought and by which we conquered—the ideas of nationalism and internationalism."
- Robert Cecil, 1st Viscount Cecil of Chelwood, March 1923.

"Systematic research, involving most sensitive analytical methods, undertaken by the Institute confirmed the presence of cyanide compounds in all kinds of gas chamber ruins, even in the basement of Block 11 in Auschwitz, where first, experimental gassing of victims by means of Zyklon B had been carried out. The analysis of control samples, taken from other places (especially from living quarters) yielded unequivocally negative results."

The denier claim is that the traces found by Rudolf in the krema ruins can be accounted for by routine use of Zyklon B to disinfect the camp buildings. But this test find no traces in places which were subject to occasional use. It did find traces in the places where gassing is claimed by witnesses to have taken place.

The results show that the highest exposure resulted in the highest level of traces, the delousing rooms to disinfect clothing. Next cam the gas chambers, where were not used as intensely as the delousing rooms. Finally come the rest of the camp, which was known to have been subjected to delousing actions, which find that level of activity leaves no trace.

Does anyone have Himmler’s speech, given on June 21, 1944 in Sonthofen, Germany? Trying to track down a copy, I found excerpts and citations but not the speech.

“I noticed this morning that a group of our Landsberg friends have been given their freedom this morning. These include...Schubert, Jost and Nosske. Schubert confessed to...supervising the execution of about 800 Jews...(referring to the order to clean up Simferopol)...Schubert managed to kill all the Jews (by Christmas 1941). Nosske was the one the other defendants called the biggest bloodhound....
Noel, Noel, what the hell.”
Benjamin Ferencz in a letter to Telford Taylor, December 1951

either you can visit NARA in College Park, MD (reachable by the Washington DC Metro and bus, or a shuttle bus from the National Archives in DC proper), or you can order the reel. I believe you could request copies of individual microfilmed documents from NARA - check their website for prices. NARA now offer the option of a digital copy, albeit priced over $100 per entire reel,which can be downloaded after a few weeks' order wait time.

Alternatively look up Bundesarchiv NS 19's online finding guide and see which file includes the speech,then order copies from the Bundesarchiv.

Or buy a second hand copy of Smith/Peterson (eds), Himmler Geheimreden if you're happy with a transcribed version.

Copies of NARA microfilm reels are also widely available in various university libraries or major public libraries; holdings will vary greatly and most places don't have complete sets rather a handful of reels, but I know people who have been able to order specific T175 reels on interlibrary loan via their university systems in the US.

You, my only one, dearest, in isolation we are waiting for darkness. We considered the possibility of hiding but decided not to do it since we felt it would be hopeless. The famous trucks are already here and we are waiting for it to begin. I am completely calm. You — my only and dearest one, do not blame yourself for what happened, it was our destiny. We did what we could. Stay healthy and remember my words that time will heal — if not completely — then — at least partially. Take care of the little golden boy and don't spoil him too much with your love. Both of you — stay healthy, my dear ones. I will be thinking of you and Misa. Have a fabulous life, we must board the trucks.

I know what deniers would say about this but it is a powerful document.

“I noticed this morning that a group of our Landsberg friends have been given their freedom this morning. These include...Schubert, Jost and Nosske. Schubert confessed to...supervising the execution of about 800 Jews...(referring to the order to clean up Simferopol)...Schubert managed to kill all the Jews (by Christmas 1941). Nosske was the one the other defendants called the biggest bloodhound....
Noel, Noel, what the hell.”
Benjamin Ferencz in a letter to Telford Taylor, December 1951